Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

JM Leasing purchased a brand‐new semi‐truck from PACCAR in 2007. Approximately four years and 3,000 miles later, JM concluded that the truck was a lemon and sought a refund from PACCAR under Wisconsin’s Lemon Law, Wis. Stat. 218.0171.1 PACCAR agreed to refund the purchase price, but a dispute arose over reimbursement of a $53.00 title fee and escalated into a debate over the “reasonable allowance for use” to which PACCAR was entitled . Ultimately JM won an interest‐bearing judgment of $369,196.06, plus $157,697.25 in attorneys’ fees. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting PACCAR’s claims that it complied with all relevant provisions of the Lemon Law and that the district court erred in calculating pecuniary loss. View "James Michael Leasing Co. v. Paccar, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1999 Seltzer registered the word “Kashwére” as a trademark for chenille soft goods. In 2009, Seltzer sold his company’s assets, including the trademark, to its principal officers. They formed TMG, which granted Seltzer an exclusive license to sell chenille products under the Kashwére name in Japan, through Flat Be. TMG claims that Seltzer violated his license by creating USAJPN and transferring to it all rights conferred by his license, to create an appearance of distance between Seltzer and Flat Be. Although Seltzer owned a majority interest in USAJPN, he needed TMG’s approval for the transfer. Flat Be also created a line of fabrics, “Kashwére Re,’ that are not chenille. Seltzer’s license does not authorize use of the Kashwére name for products that are not chenille, but he claimed that a TMG owner approved the Kashwére Re project. USAJPN also failed to comply with a requirement to disclose the TMG licensee. The district judge denied TMG’s request to order the license cancelled or to enjoin future violations and award damages. The Seventh Circuit upheld summary judgment in favor of TMG on Seltzer’s and Flat Be’s counterclaims, but reversed summary judgment in favor of Seltzer and Flat Be on TMG’s claims. View "Kashwere, LLC v. Kashwere USAJPN, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2011, nClosures and Block began a business relationship in which nClosures designed and Block manufactured metal enclosures for electronic tablets, such as iPads. The parties signed a confidentiality agreement; nClosures then divulged its designs for the enclosure device to Block for manufacture. The first device, the Rhino Elite, entered the market for sale in October 2011. By March 2012, however, Block developed its own competing device, the Atrio. nClosures sued, alleging breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court granted summary judgment to Block on both claims, but denied Block attorney fees. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that no reasonable jury could find that nClosures took reasonable steps to keep its proprietary information confidential, so that the confidentiality agreement was unenforceable and that no reasonable jury could find that a partnership existed between nClosures and Block that could give rise to a viable breach of fiduciary duty claim.View "nClosures Inc. v. Block & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Whirlpool purchased injection-molded plastic knobs and decorative metal stampings from Grigoleit. In 1992 Whirlpool told Grigoleit that it would start using products made by Phillips. Grigoleit believed that Phillips was using a method protected by its patents. Ultimately Grigoleit licensed its patents to Whirlpool and Phillips; instead of royalties Grigoleit got Whirlpool’s business for the “Estate” and “Roper” brand lines and a promise of consideration for other business. The agreement and the patents expired in 2003. An arbitrator concluded that Whirlpool had failed to consider Grigoleit’s parts for some lines of washers and dryers and was liable for payment of money royalties or damages. Grigoleit demanded the profit it would have made had Whirlpool purchased its requirements of knobs exclusively from Grigoleit. The district court concluded that a reasonable royalty fell in the range of 1¢ to 12¢ per part and the parties then agreed that royalties would then be $140,000. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that lost profits differ from royalties. The caption on the contract is “LICENSE AGREEMENT” and the heading on paragraph 3 is “Royalties.” The agreement is a patent license; the court was not obliged to treat it as a requirements contract.View "Grigoleit Co. v. Whirlpool Corp." on Justia Law

Gerdau leased a locomotive from Titan for use in switching at its Knoxville mill. Titan shipped the locomotive in 2008, but it was damaged in transit and sent for repair. It did not reach Gerdau’s plant until 2009. Gerdau rejected it, stating that it needed further repairs. While the locomotive was being repaired, Titan assigned the lease to Leasing, an affiliated business, which then used the lease as security for a loan from Wells Fargo. The loan is nonrecourse: Wells Fargo agreed to look for repayment exclusively from the stream of rentals expected from Gerdau. Leasing made several warranties. Gerdau has never made a payment on the lease. Wells Fargo has taken control of the locomotive and is attempting to sell it. The district court granted summary judgment against Wells Fargo, ruling that Leasing had kept its promises. The court looked to the lease, and then to the Uniform Commercial Code, to see whether the locomotive had been “accepted” when the lease was assigned. Gerdau had an opportunity and the lease required Gerdau to inspect before shipment. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Gerdau did not acknowledge the locomotive’s receipt; Leasing did not live up to its warranties. It must repay Wells Fargo. Titan must perform the guarantees.View "Wells Fargo Equip. Fin., Inc. v. Titan Leasing Inc." on Justia Law

A Chester, Illinois grain bin exploded, injuring three workers. A jury awarded almost $180 million in compensatory and punitive damages against ConAgra, which owned the facility, part of a flour mill, and West Side, which ConAgra had hired about a month before the explosion to address problems in the bin. The injured workers were working on the bin’s problems. On appeal, West Side did not contest liability to the workers but claimed that it did not have to reimburse ConAgra for the cost of repairing the facility. Both maintained that damages were excessive. The Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment against ConAgra and the award of punitive damages against West Side, but affirmed awards of compensatory damages against West Side and remanded for consideration of indemnification and contribution. West Side was an independent contractor in a commercial relation with ConAgra and normal rules of contract and tort law apply. Having hired an expert in hot bins, ConAgra was entitled to assume that West Side would ask for whatever information it needed. Admission of evidence that referred to insurance was harmless; the verdicts so far exceeded $3 million that the jury’s belief that West Side carried that much insurance cannot have played a material role.View "Jentz v. Conagra Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

Washington Group, an engineering, construction and management services company, offered Abraham a position as a “lead scheduler” for a project in Wisconsin. After negotiations, Washington Group sent Abraham a letter offering him the title of “project control manager,” a higher position higher in the chain of command. Abraham, who worked for the company for about a year, pursuant to his written contract before leaving the company and filing suit, claimed that Washington Group and its parent, URS, also promised him that he would perform the duties of a project control manager and then breached that promise. The defendants claim that Abraham understood that it would give him the title of project control manager for purposes of increasing his salary but he would perform the functions of a lead scheduler on a day-to-day basis. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that Abraham received all of the promises set forth in his unambiguous written contract.View "Abraham v. Washington Grp. Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Steak n Shake owns and operates 415 restaurants and grants about 100 franchises for the operation of Steak n Shake restaurants by others. The operators of franchises in Missouri, Georgia, and Pennsylvania claim that since 1939, franchisees have set their own menu prices and participated in corporate pricing promotions at their option. After a corporate takeover in 2010, Steak n Shake enacted a new policy that requires them to adhere to company pricing on every menu item and to participate in all promotions. They also must purchase all products from a single distributor at a price negotiated by Steak n Shake. The policy had an adverse effect on revenues. The franchisees sought a declaratory judgment. About a month later, Steak n Shake adopted an arbitration policy requiring the franchisees to engage in nonbinding arbitration at Steak n Shake’s request and moved to stay the federal lawsuits. The district court refused to compel arbitration. Although each franchise agreement (except one) contained a clause in which Steak n Shake “reserve[d] the right to institute at any time a system of nonbinding arbitration or mediation,” the district court concluded that any agreement to arbitrate was illusory. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the arbitration clauses are illusory and unenforceable under Indiana law, and declining to address whether the disputes were within the scope of the arbitration agreements or whether nonbinding arbitration fits within the definition of arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.View "Druco Rests., Inc. v. Steak N Shake Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

The Developer converted a vacant building into a residential condominium by gutting and refitting it. The Developer purchased Commercial Lines Policies covering bodily injury and property damage from Nautilus, covering periods from June 1998 through June 2000. The policies define occurrence as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” but do not define accident. The policies exclude damage to “that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of those operations;” eliminate coverage for damage to “that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it;” and contain an endorsement entitled “Exclusion—Products-Completed Operations Hazard.’ Construction was completed in 2000; the Developer transferred control to a board of owners. By May 2000, one homeowner was aware of water damage. In 2005, the Board hired a consulting firm, which found that the exterior brick walls were not fully waterproofed and concluded that the deterioration had likely developed over many years, even prior to the condominium conversion, but that the present water penetration was the result of inadequate restoration of the walls. The Board sued the Developer. Nautilus denied coverage and obtained a declaratory judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reviewing the policy and finding that the shoddy workmanship, of which the board complained, was not covered by the policies; that Nautilus did not unduly delay pursuing its declaratory suit; and that the alleged damage to residents’ personal property occurred after the portions of the building were excluded from coverage.View "Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Bd. of Dirs. of Regal Lofts Condo Ass'n" on Justia Law

SFG, a Texas firm specializing in distressed‐asset investing, bought a loan portfolio from McFarland State Bank for $1.27 million (28.8% of the face value of the debt). Materials provided by McFarland’s agent indicated that the portfolio was secured by 19 real estate properties in Wisconsin. Both parties were well represented during negotiations. The Sale Agreement provided limited remedies in the event of a breach and disclaimed all other remedies. Soon after purchasing the portfolio, SFG learned that three of the 19 collateral properties that supposedly secured the loans had been released before the sale. SFG contacted McFarland; McFarland disputed liability. Months later, SFG sued, seeking damages beyond the remedies provided in the contract. Applying the contractual remedies limitation, a formula that resulted in zero recovery under the circumstances, the district court granted judgment for McFarland. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, courts hold sophisticated parties to the terms of their bargain.View "S. Fin. Grp. LLC v. McFarland State Bank" on Justia Law